Re: Wynne-Edwards ( was Homosexuality)



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > > There is quite a large body of literature on the topic of
> > > "moral hazard" which is a concept in economics that you can look
> > > up on the web.

> > JE:-
> > My understanding is that such events do not _mutually_ exchange risk
> they
> > only do so, NON mutually. Companies do not normally accept risks without
> > ascertaining the "insurable interest" of each client. This means, if the
> > gains to the client become larger and not smaller if the underwritten
> risks
> > become an empirical reality, then it is not to the interests of the
> company
> > to insure that client at that premium. Both clients and insurance
> companies
> > remain independent of each other and act in self interest.

> Which is exactly the situation that game theory was invented to
> analyze. Independent self-interested agents.

JE:-
Ok. How does this differ to _dependent_ self-interested agents?

> > JE:-
> > However, because
> > BOTH of them are acting in self interest the better companies are the
> ones
> > who get closer to the point of mutualisation and not further away from
> it.
> > They make bigger profits with less effort and stay around for longer
> periods
> > of time (are more stable). The same thing happens in nature using
> > unconscious mutualised selection.

> I'm surprised that you refer to 'the point of mutualization', since
> you frequently point out that while both parties to mutualism benefit,
> the benefit may not necessarily be equal.

JE:-
I propose that only point of maximal mutualisation exists (just one point
that maximizes the returns to all parties over a finite period of time) for
"_dependent_ self-interested agents" which I will shorten to: ISIA. A
mutualised gain is not necessarily an equal gain to each ISIA. In fact it
hardy ever is within nature. This being the case, how do you discriminate
between a mutualised gain which is unequal and an altruistic gain?

> Thus, I would think that
> there are many points of mutualisation.

JE:-
It is easier to test the contradictory proposition: there is just one point
of mutualisation over a finite period in time so testing should start with
that.


> A whole 'Edgeworth curve'
> of points. You can look this up in Google. You may also be
> interested in reading about the "Nash Bargaining Problem"

JE:-
While I thank you for your advice I think that just a simple description of
what they refer to would have been appropriate.


> > > I have seen several game-theoretic analyses
> > > related to the insurance industry. The size of co-payments
> > > in medical insurance is just one typical issue that might be
> > > analyzed within a game theory framework.

> > JE:-
> > Sounds interesting.. please expand your argument.

> I wasn't making an argument. I provided the example that you
> requested of Guy. You can read all about it on the web.
> I used the Google string
> moral hazard game theory insurance
> and got 196000 hits. The first few were right on target.

JE:-
If "The size of co-payment in medical insurance" refers to "moral hazard
game theory insurance" then both illustrate examples of how bargaining
between ISIA produces cultural evolution towards a maximal point of
mutualisation within the insurance business. The example I requested from
Guy was an example within empirical biology (that excluded "insilico") which
employed _unconscious_ acts of trading in risk (fitness mutualisation
occurring between natural ISIA defined as Darwinian fertile forms). While I
agree that the logic is the same in both cases the reasoning is not. One
refers to a conscious act requiring many cognitive skills while the other to
just an unconscious act. The difference is similar as to why natural and
artificial selection are not the same process. Can you provide an example of
an _unconscious_ act of trading in risk within nature?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx








.